Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog Swamp Shopping Centre

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Yokine, Western Australia. I get the feeling that after this discussion, there doesn't seem to be enough presence of notability for this article to stand on its own, and yet, it is a well-known center in the region, and rightly deserves a mention on WP. Feel free to contest this if new information proves my assertion incorrect. Singularity 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Swamp Shopping Centre

Dog Swamp Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Seems to be a non-notable mall; a search for sources online turned up nothing useful. Speedy (A7) and PROD were both contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the one mention in the one source alone does not give enough sense of notability. Perhaps within an encyclopedia dedicated to that particular locale, but not in this project. At least, not evident from present state of the article and its sources. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I hate to resort to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but... well, we've got literally hundreds of other articles on malls; this mall has been around for 40 years, and it seems to meet the criteria for inclusion. DS (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because one of the EL's specifically states "Dog Swamp Shopping Centre is one of Yokine’s major landmarks." Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummm ... it isnt the Mall making that claim. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, and Yokine is a residential suburb [1] of a shade under 10,000 people - the centre is at the southwest corner of this map (Wanneroo/Wiluna NE) while Dianella Plaza (about the same size) isn't far away (it's at Alexander Drive/Grand Promenade about 7 blocks NE of the suburb). Neither are at the size we normally write about, but it may be notable for other reasons. Orderinchaos 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, despite the beguiling photograph. --Lockley (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability aside, ya gotta love the name. Edison (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Checking the usual places for sources - I know of this shopping centre, used to pass it every day (it's at a major junction about 5km north of the CBD) but I'm not absolutely sure it's large/important enough to be notable, although 1967 would indeed make it one of Perth's first enclosed malls alongside Westfield Innaloo. It's interesting as Mount Hawthorn, about 2-3km away, was the main shopping district for the entire north earlier in the 1960s (traditional main-road-with-convenience-shops-either-side type) - so this one may have had a role in its demise. Orderinchaos 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just have been added some facts for the shopping centre with references. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain pending further research I am currently in the process of looking into the history of this centre, and from what I am seeing from looking thru LexNex/Factiva there seems to be some notability, particularly to do with localised issues of newsworthy status and some awards. I will be looking through these over the next 24hrs and will update and change my vote accordingly. Thewinchester (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with locality - ie Yokine, Western Australia--Matilda talk 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In line with Wikipedia:Places of local interest (which in turn refers to Wikipedia:Notability) "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I see no evidence that for this centre, or for the neighbouring Centro Flinders, there is significant coverage of this type. The references provided so far are links to the owner's web site (Westpac Property Trust), to the architects and to the local government's website - doesn't meet my view of independance from the subject. --Matilda talk 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, landmarks both large and small are notable enough to be included, and verifiability is a non-issue here. RFerreira (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, ~30 stores isn't that large a center. Best to merge with the suburb article, I think. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge -- per Lankiveil's reasoning. - Longhair\talk 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • so, are you saying that this mall just is WP:NOTBIGENOUGH to warrent its own Article ? Basing anything on size or sheer numbers says nothing about if it should/should not have an Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does come back to notability. For example, a shopping centre of that size doesn't even have its own website, and almost every secondary source on it is its own development history. We did find a few - for some obscure reason, there have been a *lot* of heroin deaths at this shopping centre (considering such are rare in Perth overall), with ample coverage in the state's main newspaper. It also had the first Adultshop.com store in a shopping centre (West Australian; Inside Retailing; both 2003) the White Pages confirms the store is still there.) We also have a reasonable ownership history of the centre going back to pre-1997, all from retail industry sources. Whether the effort to put such in is justified, however, is questionable. I say this as someone who normally votes Keep on major shopping centre AfDs, and have saved several from certain deletion - but this one just doesn't quite seem to have the necessary value to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sheer size has nothing to do with notability. If small things are non-notable then there is no need for the Quark article, which literally describes itself as generic . I simply point out where persons advocating delete (or similar) are doing so based upon erroneous concepts of notability. Esp. when that concept then tends to propagate across to other AfD's. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am prepared to be convinced that size might have something to do with notability, however in that case there is unlikely to be a shortage of independant reliable sources discussing the subject. With quarks there are multiple independant reliable sources discussing the things. This mall lacks notability as it does not meet the criterion of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - size might matter as there might be little to say about a shopping centre with 30 shops that apparently lacks much charm or any other qualities that might make it unique--Matilda talk 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC):[reply]
Beliving X number of stores is, and X number of stores isnt notable, relies on common sense, but this is Wiki, and we know there is no common sense. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, of course size isn't the only indicator, but this particular center doesn't seem to have any outstanding features that make it different to any other small community shopping center. In other words, how is this place, apart from its amusing name, any more notable than the small strip of local shops down the road from me? Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another small mall. If needed to get a consensus to get rid of the article, then consider this support for a Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all the reasons given above. It also reminds me about the discussion for highpoint shopping centre, while in my opinion it was more notable. For anyone interested, the discussion can be found here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Highpoint_shopping_centre. Kingpomba (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there's a world of difference between a small local shopping center and a four-story monstrosity with hundreds upon hundreds of stores. Lankiveil (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dog_Swamp_Shopping_Centre&oldid=1137793342"